Tapping into alcohol use during COVID: Drinking correlates among bartenders and servers

Rupa Jose; Weixi Wang; Garrick Sherman; Richard N. Rosenthal; H. Andrew Schwartz; Lyle H. Ungar; James R. McKay

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0300932

Abstract

The COVID pandemic placed a spotlight on alcohol use and the hardships of working within the food and beverage industry, with millions left jobless. Following previous studies that have found elevated rates of alcohol problems among bartenders and servers, here we studied the alcohol use of bartenders and servers who were employed during COVID. From February 12-June 16, 2021, in the midst of the U.S. COVID national emergency declaration, survey data from 1,010 employed bartender and servers were analyzed to quantify rates of excessive or hazardous drinking along with regression predictors of alcohol use as assessed by the 10-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Findings indicate that more than 2 out of 5 (44%) people surveyed reported moderate or high rates of alcohol problem severity (i.e., AUDIT scores of 8 or higher)–a rate 4 to 6 times that of the heavy alcohol use rate reported pre- or mid-pandemic by adults within and outside the industry. Person-level factors (gender, substance use, mood) along with the drinking habits of one’s core social group were significantly associated with alcohol use. Bartenders and servers reported surprisingly high rates of alcohol problem severity and experienced risk factors for hazardous drinking at multiple ecological levels. Being a highly vulnerable and understudied population, more studies on bartenders and servers are needed to assess and manage the true toll of alcohol consumption for industry employees.

Citation: Jose R, Wang W, Sherman G, Rosenthal RN, Schwartz HA, Ungar LH, et al. (2024) Tapping into alcohol use during COVID: Drinking correlates among bartenders and servers. PLoS ONE 19(4): e0300932. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300932

Editor: Prabhat Mittal, Satyawati College (Eve.), University of Delhi, INDIA

Received: June 20, 2023; Accepted: March 6, 2024; Published: April 16, 2024

This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Data Availability: Data cannot be shared publicly as participants did not provide data sharing consent. Data sharing restrictions come from the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. For researchers who meet criteria for access to confidential data, de-identified data can be made available by contacting the research coordinator for the World Well Being Project (WWBP; a multi-institutional collaboration), Leo Thorbecke (leothor@upenn.edu). In his role, Mr. Thorbecke has access to all WWBP study materials and data.

Funding: This research was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/) grant #1R01AA028032-01 (PI: H.A.S.) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (https://nida.nih.gov/) grant # K24DA029062 (PI: J.M.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Excessive or hazardous drinking can impact all facets of one’s life by compromising work performance, relationships, and health [1]. In the U.S., the COVID-19 pandemic served as a catalyst for alcohol consumption, leading the average adult to drink more monthly in the early months of the pandemic [2]. The effect of the pandemic on alcohol use varied depending on study timing, population, and alcohol measures. Some studies indicated that alcohol use remained stable for certain sub-populations (e.g., for women) [3] or decreased, but most U.S. population studies suggested that the pandemic was linked to an overall increase in alcohol consumption [4]. Despite being a historically vulnerable industry for alcohol use pre-pandemic that was directly impacted by pandemic policies, little is known about the drinking behaviors of bartenders and servers during COVID. Understanding the drinking behaviors of bartenders and servers, along with the social-affective correlates of heavy drinking, supports pandemic recovery and helps prepare frontline workers in the event of future global health emergencies (“frontline”, a restaurant industry trade term, refers to those who engage directly with customers).

Occupational studies on alcohol use consistently find that bartenders and servers have among the highest rates of heavy alcohol use [5, 6] and alcohol-related deaths (i.e., death by liver cirrhosis [7]) when compared to other professionals. A variety of social, structural, and situational factors are believed to drive drinking vulnerability for bartenders and servers. For example, bartenders and servers are often called on to manage the emotional burdens and needs of patrons [8–10] or, conversely, forced to contend with violence, harassment, and bullying from patrons, peers, or supervisors [11, 12]. Shift-work, high job stress, low job autonomy, being embedded in a “drinking culture”, and having access to alcohol in the workplace are all thought to increase problem drinking among this population [1, 13, 14].

Two known drinking triggers were exacerbated with the pandemic: job loss [15] and employment insecurity. In 2018, food service, eating, and drinking establishments employed around 13 million Americans or 6.4% of all those employed [16]. By 2020, over 110,000 food and beverage establishments closed, resulting in the removal of 2.5 million jobs [17]. For those who managed to stay employed, the loss of tips/wages, potential virus exposure, and increased financial pressure may have turned some to drink–with a recent study finding employed restaurant workers drank significantly more than those furloughed during COVID [18]. Here we studied the risk factors associated with excessive or hazardous alcohol consumption among currently employed frontline bartenders and servers.

Decades of research on risk factors indicates that stress increases one’s motivation to drink alcohol along with the frequency of heavy drinking episodes [19, 20]. Chronic excessive alcohol exposure may itself act as a stressor, reinforcing further alcohol use [21]. Positive and negative affect can also influence alcohol consumption [22]. Young adults, for example, often attribute their drinking to coping with negative affect, and days with elevated positive or negative affect are associated with increased alcohol consumption [23–25]. Studies on clinical samples receiving treatment for alcohol problems find that depression and/or anxiety are associated with heavy alcohol use upon program entry and alcohol relapse [26–28]. The presence of social network members may likewise confer risk or protection depending on the alcohol behaviors of network ties [29, 30]. For adults, being connected to heavy drinkers can increase alcohol consumption by 70%, while surrounding oneself with abstainers can decrease consumption by half [29].

The present study examined alcohol use in bartenders and servers during the COVID pandemic. Drawing on prior literature, we analyzed the association of alcohol use with multiple measures of stress (i.e., perceived stress, stressful life events, covid stress), positive and negative affect, depression and anxiety, other substance use (tobacco, drug use, etc.), and the drinking behaviors of important social network members, to understand the individual/relational factors correlated with heavy alcohol use. Food and drinking establishments consistently account for the largest share of total profits garnered from the domestic agriculture, food, and related industries (i.e., 1.055 trillion from 2010 to 2020 [31]). Being able to better identify and address risks or deterrents to excessive drinking for bartenders and servers thus has the potential to improve millions of lives along with the U.S. economy.

Materials and methods

Participants

To be eligible for the current study, participants needed to be at least 18 years old, based in the US, and identify as a “bartender, server, or other front-of-house restaurant worker.” We partnered with several organizations and Facebook groups willing to share our study details with their listservs (i.e., the U.S. Bartenders Guild, National Bartenders Association, Texas Restaurant Association, University of Houston’s College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, Nashville Servers/Bartenders, and Vegas Bartenders and Servers), to recruit participants into our online Qualtrics survey administered from February 12^th to June 16^th, 2021.

At the time of survey assessment, the U.S. was under the COVID national emergency declaration (issued January 31^st, 2020 through May 11^th, 2023). The COVID-19 pandemic was still considered a global public health emergency, though state issued stay-at-home orders were mostly no longer active. Bars and restaurants during this time had reopened but states varied in their restrictions for such establishments (capacity limits, requiring masks, etc.) [32].

Raw data from Qualtrics indicated 10,346 site “visitors” during the recruitment period. Removing individuals who failed attention checks, did not provide sufficient survey details (i.e., partial completers), spam entries, duplicates (identified using entered pay/contact information; retaining only the earliest of multiple responses), and other invalid entries (e.g., test entries) resulted in data from 1,199 participants who completed their survey from February 16^th to June 15^th, 2021. To align with prior literature, additional filtering was done such that only those whose current job title included key terms referencing bartenders or servers (i.e., “bar”, “beer”, “cocktail”, “beverage”, “sommelier”, “mixologist”, “bottle”, “server”, “waitress”, and “bayhost”) were included into our analytical sample. Individuals who currently were unemployed or not working (e.g., those furloughed or laid off; n = 16) and those who concurrently or exclusively worked in management positions (e.g., managers, directors, or owners; n = 139) were excluded. This decision was made to better capture the experiences and hardships specific to those whose job duties involved working the bar or serving customers. This yielded a total of 1,010 participants; most of whom were in the bar industry exclusively (n = 644). A total of 154 individuals had jobs with both bar and server titles.

Our study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pennsylvania. All participants provided informed written consent and were compensated $15 for completing baseline data collection. Baseline data collection included survey responses along with the acquisition of social media posts, text messages, and identifying contact information (for payment). Sensitive language/social media data were not used in the present study.

Measures

Personal demographics.

Self-reported age, gender, race, Hispanic ethnicity, annual income (a 12-level categorical variable ranging from “less than $10,000” = 1 to “more than $150,000” = 12), and education (an 8-level categorical variable ranging from “less than high school” = 1 to “postgraduate or professional degree (MA, MS, PhD, MD, JD)” = 8) were reported.

Mental health.

Measures of individual affect, perceived stress, depression, and anxiety were included. Affect was measured in the past week using the valid and reliable 10-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS [33]). Positive affect (sample α = 0.82) and negative affect (sample α = 0.80) scores ranged from 5 to 25. The higher the positive or negative affect score, the greater the positive or negative affect experienced. The 4-item Cohen’s Perceived Stress Scale [34] was used to assess perceived stress levels during the past month. Two positively phrased items (i.e., feeling things were “going their way” and being confident that they could handle their personal problems) were reversed-coded. All items were summed to create our perceived stress score measure (sample α = 0.79), ranging from 0 (no stress) to 16 (high stress). The 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9 [35]; sample α = 0.90) and 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7 [36]; sample α = 0.93) were also used to assess depression and anxiety, respectively. All items ask participants to assess the frequency they felt bothered by different things or had unsettling feelings in the past two weeks. In both cases, a 4-point response scale ranging from “not at all” to “nearly every day” was used and items were summed to create depression (range: 0–27) and anxiety (range: 0–21) total scores. Higher score values were indicative of greater depression or anxiety.

Stressors and social factors.

An adapted version of the 17-item Life Events Checklist for the DSM-5 (LEC-5 [37]) was used to capture one’s trauma history. Only removing one non-specific item (“severe human suffering”), participants were asked to endorse the other stressful life event items using the responses “happened to me”, “witnessed it”, or “doesn’t apply”. A count of the number of “happened to me” stressful life events (range: 0–16) were used in analyses. We also created a 6-item measure of COVID stressors keeping in mind the content of other COVID assessments [38]. Items focused on how COVID impacted individuals financially (e.g., income), socially (e.g., discrimination), or personally (e.g., death of loved ones). Across items, responses were coded such that higher values indicated greater COVID-related stress. All items were summed to create a COVID stressor severity score ranging from 0 (no COVID stress) to 10 (high COVID stress). Given the importance of the social group in encouraging or discouraging hazardous alcohol use, we included 4 items modified from the Important People Drug and Alcohol Interview (IPDA [39]). Participants were asked to “think of the 6 people (peers or other adults) who are most important to you in your life” and then indicate how many of those 6 people drank regularly, drank heavily, encouraged drinking or offered alcohol, and spent time in social activities weekly without drinking. The count of important people (range: 0–6) endorsing such behaviors served as the response.

Substance use.

Participants reported their lifetime, recent (past year), and current substance use. Lifetime substance use history was measured via a single item that asked individuals whether they had been diagnosed by a doctor or received treatment for anxiety, depression, and/or a substance use problem. Those who indicated being treated exclusively for substance use problems (2.38%) as well as those with comorbid conditions (substance use and anxiety: 1.59%, substance use and depression: 1.49%, all three: 7.85%), were coded as 1 (mentioned percents based on non-missing data or n = 1,007). Recent or past year substance use was assessed using the first item from the NIDA-Modified ASSIST tool (NIDA Quick Screen [40]) which asked about usage frequency for tobacco products, prescription drugs for non-medical reasons (i.e., used not as prescribed), and illegal drugs. All responses were coded as either 0 (never) or 1 (once or twice, monthly, weekly, or daily/almost daily). Current alcohol specific substance use was captured using the valid and reliable 10-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; see [41]). AUDIT responses were summed to create our outcome AUDIT total scores ranging from 0–40 where higher values indicate a greater likelihood of alcohol problems or use disorders (sample α = 0.86).

AUDIT total scores can also be grouped into categories which reflect harmful alcohol consumption. Category designations are as follows: abstainers (scores = 0), low alcohol problems/use disorders” (scores = 1–7), moderate alcohol problems/use disorders (scores = 8–15), and high alcohol problems/use disorders (scores = 16 or more). For interpretation purposes, prevalence rates will rely on AUDIT category classifications.

Analyses

Descriptive statistics are included as means, standard deviations, and percentages. An ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was estimated to understand the factors associated with alcohol problems/use disorders based on AUDIT-10 total scores. The tabled partial or final regressions included regression coefficient values, 95% confidence intervals (CI), significant p-value symbols (i.e., *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001), and measures of model fit (F statistic and R-squared values). Regressions were estimated on the full sample along with male/female subsamples. Final model standardized coefficients or Beta values (β) were also plotted on the full sample to show relative effect sizes differences across statistically significant predictors.

Results

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. As shown, our sample of bartenders and servers primarily included middle-aged, White women who had graduated high school and were earning under $50,000 a year. On average, participants endorsed greater positive affect compared to negative affect and only “mild” (i.e., PHQ-9/GAD-7 scores of 5–9) depression (M = 7.69; SD = 6.05) or anxiety (M = 6.68; SD = 5.61). Lifetime trauma was limited (M = 4.40, SD = 2.71; max value = 16) however all but 2 participants reported experiencing COVID-related stressors (M = 5.90; SD = 1.57). In the past year, nearly half of our participants reported using tobacco, over a third reported using illegal drugs, and 22% indicated they had misused prescription drugs. Additionally, many of our participants (44.05%) scored in the “moderate” or “high” range for AUDIT alcohol problems or use disorders [42]. Despite this, just 13% of people said they had been diagnosed by a doctor or received treatment for a substance use problem. The study sample treatment rate (13%) is however lower than the national rate in the 2021 National Survey of Drug Use and Health report (i.e., 15.6% of those 12 years old or older, and 15.1% of those 26 years old or older, reported either meeting DSM-5 criteria for an illicit drug/alcohol use disorder or receiving treatment at a specialized facility)–although this discrepancy might be because of differences in ages, item phrasing, and/or social desirability pressures [43]. Items inquiring about the behaviors within one’s intimate social circle (i.e., 6 important people) further showed that drinking was common practice (2–3 important people on average drank regularly, heavily, or encouraged/offered drinks) even though participants also had some people (2–3 important people on average) to spend time with on a weekly basis doing activities not centered on alcohol.

Download:

Table 1. Descriptive statistics (N = 1,010).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300932.t001

Demographic, affect, mental health, stressful life events, COVID stressors, social, and substance use variables were included in a linear regression model to understand which variables were associated with alcohol problems or use disorders among bartenders or servers. As shown in Table 2 (final model), those that identified as male (b = 1.59; SE = 0.44) or who have used substances in the past year (tobacco: b = 0.85; SE = 0.38; illegal drugs: b = 2.22; SE = 0.43) reported higher AUDIT scores than those who identified as female or reported no past year substance use, respectively. Higher recent negative affect (b = 0.16; SE = 0.07) or depression (b = 0.16; SE = 0.06) scores, and having close ties to drinkers (b = 0.31; SE = 0.15), especially those who drink heavily (b = 0.60; SE = 0.17) or tend to pressure one to drink (b = 0.75; SE = 0.14), were associated with higher AUDIT scores or indicative of greater alcohol problems or use disorders. In contrast, higher positive affect (b = -0.13; SE = 0.05) and having more people to socialize with in a non-drinking context (b = -0.32; SE = 0.10) was associated with lower AUDIT scores.

Download:

Table 2. Predicting drinking problems or use disorders in servers and bartenders (N = 1,001).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300932.t002

Final model results and the results of the partial models (where predictor blocks were entered in a sequential manner) are similar barring a few exceptions. Prior to the final model, negative affect was not statistically significant, age was negatively associated with AUDIT scores, and education along with past prescription drug use were positively associated with AUDIT scores. Across the partial models and full model, substance use and social network predictors resulted in the largest gains in R-squared–accounting for around a 12% increase each time in the model’s variance explained or predictive utility.

Plotted standardized coefficient final model values in Fig 1 show that social factors had the most robust associations with hazardous drinking. On the negative end, having people around you who encourage or offer drinks posed the greatest risk for problem drinking (β = 0.19); it was even worse than illegal drug use (β = 0.15) or being depressed (β = 0.14). On the positive end, having people around you to engage in activities that did not involve drinking (β = - 0.09) and being in a positive state of mind (β = - 0.08) appeared to be protective. No significant associations were found between AUDIT scores and COVID stress, stressful life events, anxiety, or perceived stress.

Download:

Fig 1. Bar graph of standardized predictors related to alcohol problems or use disorders (N = 1,001).

The y-axis includes all statistically significant predictors of drinking problems or disorders in the final model: male gender, tobacco use past year, illegal drug use past year, positive affect, negative affect, depression, count of IP (important people) who drink regularly, count of IP who drink heavily, count of IP who encourage/offer drinks, and count of IP who spend time with one in non-drinking activities. It also includes a few key non-significant predictors measuring COVID stressors, stressful life events, anxiety, and perceived stress. The x-axis is standardized or Beta (β) values. *p<0.05. **p<0.01. ***p<0.001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300932.g001

Results from our gender subsample models (see Table 3) suggested that while some of the risk factors for hazardous drinking were the same irrespective of gender (e.g., endorsing illegal drug use, having more core network members who offer/encourage drinking, and have few opportunities to socialize with close others without alcohol), not all risk factors are shared. For females, having close ties to more heavy drinkers (b = 0.68; SE = 0.19), endorsing a history of past prescription drug use (as opposed to no past use; b = 1.14; SE = 0.53), and higher depression scores (b = 0.14; SE = 0.06) were associated with higher AUDIT scores or problem drinking behavior. Additionally for females, higher positive affect scores (b = -0.14; SE = 0.05) were associated with lower AUDIT scores. For males, while having close ties with regular drinkers (b = 0.74; SE = 0.34) was associated with higher AUDIT scores, greater anxiety symptomatology (b = -0.35; SE = 0.17) was associated with lower AUDIT scores.

Download:

Table 3. Gender differences in alcohol problems or use disorders among servers and bartenders.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300932.t003

Discussion

The present study found that almost half (44%) of employed bartenders and servers in the sample reported moderate to high rates of alcohol problem severity. Historic data on this population finds them at risk for alcohol problems such as alcohol abuse or dependence [5]. Consistent with this, our study reported rates for “high alcohol problems or use disorders” (14.55%) were notably higher whether we compared study rates to monthly pre-pandemic industry estimates of heavy alcohol use among employed adults (11.8% for adults in accommodations/food service industry [6]) or national rates of adult heavy alcohol use mid-pandemic (7% [44]). Even when looking at binge drinking, assessed with a single item from the NIDA Quick Screen [37] that asked how often one consumed alcohol (i.e., 5 or more drinks a day for men or 4 or more drinks a day for women) in the last year, we find that our sample of bartenders and servers binge drank (study rate: 84.65%) over 3.5 times more than the average American (24% [44]). Despite being a population at risk for an alcohol use disorder, only a fraction of bartenders and servers surveyed reported previously being diagnosed with or treated for a substance use disorder.

The strongest correlates of greater alcohol problem severity in the full sample were having important social network members who drank heavily or encouraged drinking, depression, negative affect, and using illegal drugs. The two factors significantly associated with lower alcohol problem severity were spending time in non-drinking activities with important social network members and positive mood. Surprisingly, our multiple measures of stress (perceived general stress, covid stress, and stressful life events) and anxiety were not significantly associated with problematic alcohol consumption.

The results linking social network drinking [29, 30], depression [26–28], and negative affect [22, 23, 25] to heavier drinking are consistent with findings from prior studies in clinical and non-clinical samples. The association between greater alcohol problem severity and illegal drug use is to be expected, given well-documented high rates of comorbidity between problematic alcohol and drug use as well as alcohol and drug use disorders [45]. Substance use comorbidity has been found across many populations and is not unique to bartenders and servers.

Population studies regularly suggest that COVID-related stress, perceived stress, life event stress, and anxiety can lead to alcohol use [4, 46, 47]; our null results however imply that the triggers for drinking among bartenders and servers during COVID have been different. Being employed in an industry where alcohol is often readily available, coupled with the decline in social and recreational activities [48] due to business closures and public health protocols, may have mattered more to our participants (most of whom were bartenders) than stress or anxiety when considering harmful alcohol consumption.

Contextual cues–whether social or structural, warrant future attention. Studies on alcohol use within this population may thus benefit from including multiple measures which approximate the social or physical environments that bartenders and servers navigate daily. COVID is an evolving global phenomenon which has changed, and continues to change, what it means to work in the service industry. Our results as such should be replicated.

Gender differences exist nationally [49] and in our sample (e.g., 50.64% of males vs. 42.33% of females reported “moderate” or “high” alcohol problems) for hazardous alcohol consumption. Risk factors also appear to be different along affective and social dimensions by gender. Although depression and anxiety are frequently associated with harmful drinking [50], in our sample it was only depressed women or those reporting low positive affect that were at risk for poor alcohol outcomes. Moreover, counterintuitively, for men self-reported recent anxiety was associated with a decline in alcohol problems. The sobering effect of anxiety on male bartenders or servers might signal for this subgroup heavy drinking only flourishes in times where one can be care-free (analogous to a “college” like effect) [51]. Feelings of anxiety might have also resulted in male bartenders or severs engaging in more health-conscious behaviors during the pandemic, including reduced drinking. Social network differences in risk also emerged with men being vulnerable for alcohol problems when around close regular drinkers and women being vulnerable for alcohol problems when around close heavy drinkers. This reinforces the idea that both network composition and degree of drinking play a role in drinking vulnerability for men and women [29]. Women who had abused prescription drugs in the past year reported higher AUDIT scores. Women and daily drinkers are more likely to abuse or misuse prescription drugs [52]. As women tend to use prescription drugs to cope with interpersonal trauma (e.g., sexual victimization) [53] or conflict [54], past prescription drug could be seen as a distal proxy for poor mental health.

Longitudinal research is needed to better understand how our established risk factors and alcohol consumption vary over time for bartenders, servers, and other service industry professionals. The correlational design of the current study is a limitation. In the absence of pre-pandemic alcohol use data, we were prevented from knowing the impact of pandemic on alcohol use and whether the alcohol use rates reported reflected participants’ status quo or a change (e.g., an increase in drinking). Still our recruitment of a large nationwide sample of currently employed bartenders or servers and the use of well-validated measures remains an important strength.

Recruiting participants from the food and beverage industry during the pandemic was challenging and resulted in a few additional limitations. For example, instead of recruiting in-person during national events or conventions regularly attended by bartenders and severs, we were forced to recruit using national or local industry listservs. This decision while appropriate could have biased our sample to include more socially connected/professionally integrated bartenders or servers. It also might have contributed to the sparse number of unemployed or furloughed individuals in the original data (n = 16; excluded in study analyses). Even though our focus was on those employed during the pandemic, our lack of a sizeable non-employed sample perhaps by design (as such individuals might not be active members of professional listservs) meant we were unable to comment on how pandemic job loss or employment change was associated with industry drinking rates. Importantly, we did not require participants to endorse recent alcohol use or a history of alcohol use, thus there is no reason to believe the high drinking rates reported reflect the sampling protocol. Findings are specific to employed bartenders/servers during the COVID pandemic and cannot be generalized to other service industry workers or national emergencies without additional research.

Conclusion

The COVID pandemic reminded us how essential service professionals are and how fragile their health can be at times. Here we find that many bartenders and servers had been consuming alcohol at dangerous levels during the COVID pandemic. A mix of personal and social attributes such as depressed mood, negative affect, illegal substance use, and having close ties with drinkers or those who encourage drinking, were associated with more alcohol consumption among bartenders and servers while positive affect, self-reported anxiety, and sober socialization were found to be protective. The food and beverage industry is a multimillion-person enterprise with a risky drinker rate twice that of the general public (14.55% vs. 7% [44]). Attention and funds as such need to be directed at understanding and combating hazardous alcohol use for service industry professionals as it is a serious, pervasive health problem for many bartenders and servers. Gender tailored approaches are advocated for when tackling hazardous alcohol use among industry employees as rates along with risk or protective factors differ for male and female bartenders and servers.

References

1. Room R, Babor T, Rehm J. Alcohol and public health. Lancet. 2005;365(9458):519–30. pmid:15705462
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Pollard MS, Tucker JS, Green HD Jr. Changes in Adult Alcohol Use and Consequences During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(9):e2022942. pmid:32990735
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Tucker JS, Rodriguez A, Green HD Jr., Pollard MS. Trajectories of alcohol use and problems during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of social stressors and drinking motives for men and women. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022;232:109285. pmid:35033955
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Acuff SF, Strickland JC, Tucker JA, Murphy JG. Changes in alcohol use during COVID-19 and associations with contextual and individual difference variables: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Addict Behav. 2022;36(1):1–19. pmid:34807630
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Mandell W, Eaton WW, Anthony JC, Garrison R. Alcoholism and occupations: A review and analysis of 104 occupations. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 1992;16(4):734–46. pmid:1530136
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Bush DM, Lipari RN. Substance Use and Substance Use Disorder by Industry. US: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2015.
7. Leigh JP, Jiang WY. Liver cirrhosis deaths within occupations and industries in the California occupational mortality study. Addiction. 1993;88:767–79. pmid:8329968
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Anderson KA, Maile JJ, Fisher LG. The healing tonic: A pilot study of the perceived ability and potential of bartenders. Journal of Military and Veterans’ Health. 2010;18(4):17–24.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Bernard HS, Roach AM, Resnick H. Training bartenders as helpers on a college campus. Personnel and Guidance Journal. 1981;60(2):119–21.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Lieberman DZ, MacIntyre JC II, Wissow L, Powers RA, Pruitt D. Natural helpers after the terrorist attacks of September 11. WebmedCentral PSYCHIATRY. 2010;1(11):1–8.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Grandey AA, Dickter DN, Sin H-P. The customer is not always right: customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2004;25(3):397–418.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Tutenges S, Bogkjaer T, Witte M, Hesse M. Drunken environments: a survey of bartenders working in pubs, bars and nightclubs. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(10):4896–906. pmid:24157511
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Jennison KM. The short-term effects and unintended long-term consequences of binge drinking in college: a 10-year follow-up study. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2004;30(3):659–84. pmid:15540499
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Moore RS, Cunradi CB, Duke MR, Ames GM. Dimensions of problem drinking among young adult restaurant workers. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2009;35(5):329–33. pmid:20180660
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Huang A, Makridis C, Baker M, Medeiros M, Guo Z. Understanding the impact of COVID-19 intervention policies on the hospitality labor market. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2020; 91: 102660. pmid:32904433
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. USDA. Ag and food statistics: Charting the essentials, February 2020 (Issue 083). 2020.
17. King R. More than 110,000 eating and drinking establishments closed in 2020. Fortune. 2021 January 26, 2021.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Bufquin D, Park J-Y, Back RM, de Souza Meira JV, Hight SK. Employee work status, mental health, substance use, and career turnover intentions: An examination of restaurant employees during COVID-19. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2021;93. pmid:36919175
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Dawson DA, Grant BF, Ruan WJ. The association between stress and drinking: modifying effects of gender and vulnerability. Alcohol & Alcoholism. 2005;40(5):453–60. pmid:15972275
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Frone MR. Work Stress and Alcohol Use: Developing and Testing a Biphasic Self-Medication Model. Work Stress. 2016;30(4):374–94. pmid:28090129
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Becker HC. Influence of stress associated with chronic alcohol exposure on drinking. Neuropharmacology. 2017;122:115–26. pmid:28431971
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Cooper ML, Frone MR, Russell M, Mudar P. Drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions: A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;69(5):990–1005. pmid:7473043
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. O’Hara RE, Armeli S, Tennen H. Drinking-to-cope motivation and negative mood-drinking contingencies in a daily diary study of college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2014;75(4):606–14. pmid:24988259
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Simons JS, Dvorak RD, Batien BD, Wray TB. Event-level associations between affect, alcohol intoxication, and acute dependence symptoms: Effects of urgency, self-control, and drinking experience. Addict Behav. 2010;35(12):1045–53. pmid:20685044
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Collins RL, Morsheimer ET, Shiffman S, Paty JA, Gnys M, Papandonatos GD. Ecological momentary assessment in a behavioral drinking moderation training program. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 1998;6(3):306–15. pmid:9725114
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Burns L, Teesson M, O’Neill K. The impact of comorbid anxiety and depression on alcohol treatment outcomes. Addiction. 2005;100(6):787–96. pmid:15918809
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Hasin D, Liu X, Nunes E, McCloud S, Samet S, Endicott J. Effects of major depression on remission and relapse of substance dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2002;59(4):375–80. pmid:11926938
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Willinger U, Lenzinger E, Hornik K, Fischer G, Schönbeck G, Aschauer HN, et al. Anxiety as a predictor of relapse in detoxified alcohol-dependent patients. Alcohol & Alcoholism. 2002;37(6):609–12. pmid:12414556
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Rosenquist JN, Murabito J, Fowler JH, Christakis NA. The spread of alcohol consumption behavior in a large social network. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2010;152:426–33. pmid:20368648
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Wang C, Hipp JR, Butts CT, Jose R, Lakon CM. Alcohol use among adolescent youth: the role of friendship networks and family factors in multiple school studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0119965. pmid:25756364
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. USDA. Ag and food sectors and the economy. 2022. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/.
32. Today USA. COVID-19 restrictions: Map of COVIF-19 case trends and restrictions. USA Today. 2022.
33. Thompson ER. Development and Validation of an Internationally Reliable Short-Form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2016;38(2):227–42.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1983;24(4):385–96. pmid:6668417
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:606–13. pmid:11556941
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2006;166(10):1092–7. pmid:16717171
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Weathers FW, Blake DD, Schnurr PP, Kaloupek DG, Marx BP, Keane TM. The Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 (LEC-5): National Center for PTSD; 2013 [www.ptsd.va.gov.
38. Park CL, Russell BS, Fendrich M, Finkelstein-Fox L, Hutchison M, Becker J. Americans’ COVID-19 Stress, Coping, and Adherence to CDC Guidelines. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(8):2296–303. pmid:32472486
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Zywiak WH, Neighbors CJ, Martin RA, Johnson JE, Eaton CA, Rohsenow DJ. The Important People Drug and Alcohol interview: psychometric properties, predictive validity, and implications for treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009;36(3):321–30. pmid:18835677
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. NIDA. Resource guide: Screening for drug use in general medical settings. National Institute on Drug Abuse2012. https://archives.drugabuse.gov/publications/resource-guide-screening-drug-use-in-general-medical-settings.
41. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, De La Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction. 1993;88(6):791–804. pmid:8329970
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC, Saunders JB, Monteiro MG. AUDIT: The alcohol use disorders identification test: Guidelines for use in primary health care, 2nd ed. World Health Organization; 2001.
43. SAMSHA. Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2022. Report No.: PEP22-07-01-005.
44. SAMSHA. Table 2.9B - Alcohol, binge alcohol, and heavy alcohol use in past month: Among people aged 12 or older; by detailed age category, percentages, 2019 and 2020. 2020.
45. McGue M, Irons DE. Addictions: A comprehensive guidebook McCrady BS, Epstein EE, editors: Oxford University Press; 2013.
46. Keyes KM, Hatzenbuehler ML, Hasin DS. Stressful life experiences, alcohol consumption, and alcohol use disorders: the epidemiologic evidence for four main types of stressors. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011;218(1):1–17. pmid:21373787
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Storr CL, Reboussin BA, Green KM, Mojtabai R, Susukida R, Young AS, et al. Stressful life events and transitions in problematic alcohol use involvement among US adults. Subst Use Misuse. 2021;56(14):2171–80. pmid:34523388
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Borgonovi F, Andrieu E. Bowling together by bowling alone: Social capital and COVID-19. Soc Sci Med. 2020;265:113501. pmid:33203551
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. White AM. Gender differences in the epidemiology of alcohol use and related harms in the united states. Alcohol Res. 2020;40(2):01. pmid:33133878
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Caldwell TM, Rodgers B, Jorm AF, Christensen H, Jacomb PA, Korten AE, et al. Patterns of association between alcohol consumption and symptoms of depression and anxiety in young adults. Addiction. 2002;97(5):583–94. pmid:12033659
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Colby SM, Colby JJ, Raymond GA. College versus the real world: Student perceptions and implications for understanding heavy drinking among college students. Addict Behav. 2009;34(1):17–27. pmid:18774233
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Simoni-Wastila L, Strickler G. Risk factors associated with problem use of prescription drugs. American Journal of Public Health. 2004;94(2):266–8. pmid:14759941
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Walsh K, Resnick HS, Danielson CK, McCauley JL, Saunders BE, Kilpatrick DG. Patterns of drug and alcohol use associated with lifetime sexual revictimization and current posttraumatic stress disorder among three national samples of adolescent, college, and household-residing women. Addict Behav. 2014;39(3):684–9. pmid:24370205
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Back SE, Lawson KM, Singleton LM, Brady KT. Characteristics and correlates of men and women with prescription opioid dependence. Addict Behav. 2011;36(8):829–34. pmid:21514061
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Room R, Babor T, Rehm J. Alcohol and public health. Lancet. 2005;365(9458):519–30. pmid:15705462
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Pollard MS, Tucker JS, Green HD Jr. Changes in Adult Alcohol Use and Consequences During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(9):e2022942. pmid:32990735
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Tucker JS, Rodriguez A, Green HD Jr., Pollard MS. Trajectories of alcohol use and problems during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of social stressors and drinking motives for men and women. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022;232:109285. pmid:35033955
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Acuff SF, Strickland JC, Tucker JA, Murphy JG. Changes in alcohol use during COVID-19 and associations with contextual and individual difference variables: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Addict Behav. 2022;36(1):1–19. pmid:34807630
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Mandell W, Eaton WW, Anthony JC, Garrison R. Alcoholism and occupations: A review and analysis of 104 occupations. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 1992;16(4):734–46. pmid:1530136
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Bush DM, Lipari RN. Substance Use and Substance Use Disorder by Industry. US: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2015.

[ref7] 7. Leigh JP, Jiang WY. Liver cirrhosis deaths within occupations and industries in the California occupational mortality study. Addiction. 1993;88:767–79. pmid:8329968
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] PubMed/NCBI

[25] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Anderson KA, Maile JJ, Fisher LG. The healing tonic: A pilot study of the perceived ability and potential of bartenders. Journal of Military and Veterans’ Health. 2010;18(4):17–24.
View Article
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Bernard HS, Roach AM, Resnick H. Training bartenders as helpers on a college campus. Personnel and Guidance Journal. 1981;60(2):119–21.
View Article
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Lieberman DZ, MacIntyre JC II, Wissow L, Powers RA, Pruitt D. Natural helpers after the terrorist attacks of September 11. WebmedCentral PSYCHIATRY. 2010;1(11):1–8.
View Article
Google Scholar

[33] View Article

[34] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Grandey AA, Dickter DN, Sin H-P. The customer is not always right: customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2004;25(3):397–418.
View Article
Google Scholar

[36] View Article

[37] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Tutenges S, Bogkjaer T, Witte M, Hesse M. Drunken environments: a survey of bartenders working in pubs, bars and nightclubs. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(10):4896–906. pmid:24157511
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] PubMed/NCBI

[41] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Jennison KM. The short-term effects and unintended long-term consequences of binge drinking in college: a 10-year follow-up study. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2004;30(3):659–84. pmid:15540499
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[43] View Article

[44] PubMed/NCBI

[45] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Moore RS, Cunradi CB, Duke MR, Ames GM. Dimensions of problem drinking among young adult restaurant workers. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2009;35(5):329–33. pmid:20180660
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] PubMed/NCBI

[49] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Huang A, Makridis C, Baker M, Medeiros M, Guo Z. Understanding the impact of COVID-19 intervention policies on the hospitality labor market. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2020; 91: 102660. pmid:32904433
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] PubMed/NCBI

[53] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. USDA. Ag and food statistics: Charting the essentials, February 2020 (Issue 083). 2020.

[ref17] 17. King R. More than 110,000 eating and drinking establishments closed in 2020. Fortune. 2021 January 26, 2021.
View Article
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Bufquin D, Park J-Y, Back RM, de Souza Meira JV, Hight SK. Employee work status, mental health, substance use, and career turnover intentions: An examination of restaurant employees during COVID-19. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2021;93. pmid:36919175
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Dawson DA, Grant BF, Ruan WJ. The association between stress and drinking: modifying effects of gender and vulnerability. Alcohol & Alcoholism. 2005;40(5):453–60. pmid:15972275
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] PubMed/NCBI

[65] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Frone MR. Work Stress and Alcohol Use: Developing and Testing a Biphasic Self-Medication Model. Work Stress. 2016;30(4):374–94. pmid:28090129
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] PubMed/NCBI

[69] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Becker HC. Influence of stress associated with chronic alcohol exposure on drinking. Neuropharmacology. 2017;122:115–26. pmid:28431971
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[71] View Article

[72] PubMed/NCBI

[73] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Cooper ML, Frone MR, Russell M, Mudar P. Drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions: A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;69(5):990–1005. pmid:7473043
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[75] View Article

[76] PubMed/NCBI

[77] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. O’Hara RE, Armeli S, Tennen H. Drinking-to-cope motivation and negative mood-drinking contingencies in a daily diary study of college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2014;75(4):606–14. pmid:24988259
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[79] View Article

[80] PubMed/NCBI

[81] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Simons JS, Dvorak RD, Batien BD, Wray TB. Event-level associations between affect, alcohol intoxication, and acute dependence symptoms: Effects of urgency, self-control, and drinking experience. Addict Behav. 2010;35(12):1045–53. pmid:20685044
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[83] View Article

[84] PubMed/NCBI

[85] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Collins RL, Morsheimer ET, Shiffman S, Paty JA, Gnys M, Papandonatos GD. Ecological momentary assessment in a behavioral drinking moderation training program. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 1998;6(3):306–15. pmid:9725114
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[87] View Article

[88] PubMed/NCBI

[89] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Burns L, Teesson M, O’Neill K. The impact of comorbid anxiety and depression on alcohol treatment outcomes. Addiction. 2005;100(6):787–96. pmid:15918809
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[91] View Article

[92] PubMed/NCBI

[93] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Hasin D, Liu X, Nunes E, McCloud S, Samet S, Endicott J. Effects of major depression on remission and relapse of substance dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2002;59(4):375–80. pmid:11926938
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[95] View Article

[96] PubMed/NCBI

[97] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Willinger U, Lenzinger E, Hornik K, Fischer G, Schönbeck G, Aschauer HN, et al. Anxiety as a predictor of relapse in detoxified alcohol-dependent patients. Alcohol & Alcoholism. 2002;37(6):609–12. pmid:12414556
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[99] View Article

[100] PubMed/NCBI

[101] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Rosenquist JN, Murabito J, Fowler JH, Christakis NA. The spread of alcohol consumption behavior in a large social network. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2010;152:426–33. pmid:20368648
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[103] View Article

[104] PubMed/NCBI

[105] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Wang C, Hipp JR, Butts CT, Jose R, Lakon CM. Alcohol use among adolescent youth: the role of friendship networks and family factors in multiple school studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0119965. pmid:25756364
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] PubMed/NCBI

[109] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. USDA. Ag and food sectors and the economy. 2022. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/.

[ref32] 32. Today USA. COVID-19 restrictions: Map of COVIF-19 case trends and restrictions. USA Today. 2022.

[ref33] 33. Thompson ER. Development and Validation of an Internationally Reliable Short-Form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2016;38(2):227–42.
View Article
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1983;24(4):385–96. pmid:6668417
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[116] View Article

[117] PubMed/NCBI

[118] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:606–13. pmid:11556941
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] PubMed/NCBI

[122] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2006;166(10):1092–7. pmid:16717171
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] PubMed/NCBI

[126] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Weathers FW, Blake DD, Schnurr PP, Kaloupek DG, Marx BP, Keane TM. The Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 (LEC-5): National Center for PTSD; 2013 [www.ptsd.va.gov.

[ref38] 38. Park CL, Russell BS, Fendrich M, Finkelstein-Fox L, Hutchison M, Becker J. Americans’ COVID-19 Stress, Coping, and Adherence to CDC Guidelines. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(8):2296–303. pmid:32472486
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] PubMed/NCBI

[131] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Zywiak WH, Neighbors CJ, Martin RA, Johnson JE, Eaton CA, Rohsenow DJ. The Important People Drug and Alcohol interview: psychometric properties, predictive validity, and implications for treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009;36(3):321–30. pmid:18835677
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] PubMed/NCBI

[135] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. NIDA. Resource guide: Screening for drug use in general medical settings. National Institute on Drug Abuse2012. https://archives.drugabuse.gov/publications/resource-guide-screening-drug-use-in-general-medical-settings.

[ref41] 41. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, De La Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction. 1993;88(6):791–804. pmid:8329970
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[138] View Article

[139] PubMed/NCBI

[140] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC, Saunders JB, Monteiro MG. AUDIT: The alcohol use disorders identification test: Guidelines for use in primary health care, 2nd ed. World Health Organization; 2001.

[ref43] 43. SAMSHA. Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2022. Report No.: PEP22-07-01-005.

[ref44] 44. SAMSHA. Table 2.9B - Alcohol, binge alcohol, and heavy alcohol use in past month: Among people aged 12 or older; by detailed age category, percentages, 2019 and 2020. 2020.

[ref45] 45. McGue M, Irons DE. Addictions: A comprehensive guidebook McCrady BS, Epstein EE, editors: Oxford University Press; 2013.

[ref46] 46. Keyes KM, Hatzenbuehler ML, Hasin DS. Stressful life experiences, alcohol consumption, and alcohol use disorders: the epidemiologic evidence for four main types of stressors. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011;218(1):1–17. pmid:21373787
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[146] View Article

[147] PubMed/NCBI

[148] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Storr CL, Reboussin BA, Green KM, Mojtabai R, Susukida R, Young AS, et al. Stressful life events and transitions in problematic alcohol use involvement among US adults. Subst Use Misuse. 2021;56(14):2171–80. pmid:34523388
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[150] View Article

[151] PubMed/NCBI

[152] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Borgonovi F, Andrieu E. Bowling together by bowling alone: Social capital and COVID-19. Soc Sci Med. 2020;265:113501. pmid:33203551
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[154] View Article

[155] PubMed/NCBI

[156] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. White AM. Gender differences in the epidemiology of alcohol use and related harms in the united states. Alcohol Res. 2020;40(2):01. pmid:33133878
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[158] View Article

[159] PubMed/NCBI

[160] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Caldwell TM, Rodgers B, Jorm AF, Christensen H, Jacomb PA, Korten AE, et al. Patterns of association between alcohol consumption and symptoms of depression and anxiety in young adults. Addiction. 2002;97(5):583–94. pmid:12033659
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[162] View Article

[163] PubMed/NCBI

[164] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Colby SM, Colby JJ, Raymond GA. College versus the real world: Student perceptions and implications for understanding heavy drinking among college students. Addict Behav. 2009;34(1):17–27. pmid:18774233
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[166] View Article

[167] PubMed/NCBI

[168] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Simoni-Wastila L, Strickler G. Risk factors associated with problem use of prescription drugs. American Journal of Public Health. 2004;94(2):266–8. pmid:14759941
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[170] View Article

[171] PubMed/NCBI

[172] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Walsh K, Resnick HS, Danielson CK, McCauley JL, Saunders BE, Kilpatrick DG. Patterns of drug and alcohol use associated with lifetime sexual revictimization and current posttraumatic stress disorder among three national samples of adolescent, college, and household-residing women. Addict Behav. 2014;39(3):684–9. pmid:24370205
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[174] View Article

[175] PubMed/NCBI

[176] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Back SE, Lawson KM, Singleton LM, Brady KT. Characteristics and correlates of men and women with prescription opioid dependence. Addict Behav. 2011;36(8):829–34. pmid:21514061
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[178] View Article

[179] PubMed/NCBI

[180] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Participants

Measures

Personal demographics.

Mental health.

Stressors and social factors.

Substance use.

Analyses

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

References